ROEs and fighting Extremists while bound by the Geneva
- Locked due to inactivity on Aug 4, '16 4:33pm
Thread Topic: ROEs and fighting Extremists while bound by the Geneva
-
And I kind of just answered my "where the hell did I mention" question...
-
Also, I added in "sexist" for teh lulz. Get a grip on humor IHLAOY you're usually... Well, I dunno.
-
That doesn't explain how it's sexist. There are plenty of subordinate characters in fiction, but that doesn't mean they're any worse than a dominate character, nor does it imply it's purely a gender issue. What about Puck from Berserk? Jimmy Olson from Superman? Watson from Sherlock Holmes? All of these characters have had terrible things happen to them, does that mean it's sexist against men to include submissive characters?
In fact, I'd say it's MORE sexist to dictate what a woman can and can't be.
"hey that soldier shouldn't die because he killed that serial killer".
Right here. Are you not implying that the soldier who lost his family died due to the fact that he killed the serial killer, who I presume is the murdered of said family?
Wouldn't prison also provide closure though? If you need to kill to give yourself closure, I agree with Geek, you need to get to a therapist. -
I s'pose that was a late post. Either that, or you too are losing your touch.
"hey that soldier shouldn't die because he killed that serial killer". I clarified my opinion that it is not centered around a soldier freely killing criminals, but rather the soldier shouldn't face such severe penalties if he does kill after a small slaughter of his own family. At-least, if he kills the transgressor. -
And I'm under the opinion that you should never kill a surrendering man, regardless of his actions. Every man is entitled to a trial. It doesn't matter if killing him will make you happy. It doesn't matter if he's literally Hitler. We have laws and standards in place that are afforded to everyone, and we can't just ignore these for special and hypothetical circumstances.
Besides, this whole scenario makes no sense from a war perspective, which is what the RoE's would cover. -
Again, I'm not 101% sure you get me, I'm not defending the soldier's right to kill the guy, I'm defending the soldier's right to a proper grievance and a second chance. I agree with your "Every man is entitled to a trial" statement, even if he had done something unthinkable (oh hell who am I kidding, Japan's thought of... Y'know what nevermind.).
Do you agree with me, or no? Then I can give myself a proper leave. -
The man who killed osama bin laden needed a therapist, not because of fear of terrorists, but because of fears of osamas ghost coming for him. Killing someone does not help your mental situation.
-
For the majority of humans, it can provide some sort of closure, knowing that man (or woman) will never harm again and no other family would have to suffer the same fate. Would that make you feel... A little bit better?
-
You're a virgin talking about sex here. You've never killed anyone and that makes you uninformed.
So I looked uo some statistics.
Only 15-20% of soldiers in WW2 actually fired there gun.
They did not want to kill.
In the vietnam war there were 52,000 bullets fired per vietnam soldier killed.
They did not want to shoot them, soldiers know how to fire a gun.
Heck, there was propaganda dehumanizing the enemy, the enemy was trying to kill them. Yet they did not want to kill. Killing another human takes a lot out of someone. -
(Also, note I am supporting my opinion that it would mean a form of closure, not that it's a fine thing to do.)
-
And you're a hacker talking about complex football plans.
Also, there's a cloud of potential misinterpretation there. The enemy soldiers never did anything personal to the opponent, whatever happened was in the honor of protecting their own nation. That is incredibly different from simply deciding to violate and murder one's family. That's personal, and in no way connected to a 'bigger picture', if you will.
Although I think my own opinion might be clouding my own sense of judgement. Everybody feels different, so honestly, I think none of us are right, save for your provided information (which may or may not be correct, I'm really not going to look it up). I have a few pages up and they display conflicting information, about half saying "there is no closure!", while the other half says "justice!" (Note in this case it is the death penalty).
But then again we kind of deviated from the actual point of the thread. Whether or not a soldier should face serious repercussions of killing a man (or woman) who did something horrendous. I vote no. -
I live in england. Occasionally I go on vacation to germany. I do not tell anyone in my town when I go to germany, because many of the older people in my town still hate the germans because their houses were bombed.
You changed the question to make your side look better. The question is should you be allowed to use far more force than needed against a surrendering individual who poses no threat to you currently even though in the past they have killed somebody who you care about. -
They're actually the same questions. Also, I can see some subtle usage of negative connotations in your post, "far" and "no". Also, you imply it was only one person, "in the past" makes it seem long ago, despite the situation calls upon you finding out something extremely disruptive and emotionally shredding just a minute ago. I'd say that's in the present.
-
Far is needed because there is a big difference between banging someones head as you put them in a car and pulling out a pistol and shooting them, the first is acceptable when the second isn't. So I will leave that there.
Just a minute a go is in the past. If you were there a minute a go you could have shot them while they were killing someone.
And rephrasing the question is needed because the first post phrased the situation incredibly badly...
Rephrased.
Should you be allowed to use far more force than needed against a surrendering individual who poses little threat to you currently even though they have killed somebody who you care about. -
Well then again, that exempts literally every wrongdoing in history since anything that's ever happened has happened in the past. Perhaps if it were a year or at-least a month ago I might be a little more forgiving. But in this case, no. The present is a generalization, usually referring to the current day. Not the current pico-second.
Also, I never said it should be allowed. Just that they shouldn't have to face serious repercussions such as life in prison or even execution. Right man did the right thing to the right person in the bad way.
Pages:
- 1
- 2
This thread is locked, therefore no new posts can be made.
